Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:14:25 +0000
Malcolm McLean said:
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
You have told me, for example, that C is fully aware of internationalThe identity of char and byte, with hindsight, was a mistake.
strings. But when I try to re-use this code in .Net, it can't be
called directly from C Sharp using a String object, because its
interface appears in C Sharp as consisting of sbyte arrays. I fear
that there is no way of converting sbyte arrays to and from two-byte
wide character arrays without an extra loop...although there "might"
be a single Pentium instruction to do so.
I'm not convinced, Malcolm. What makes you think it's a mistake?
However it has the good effect that it encourages the use of ASCII, which
is the one de facto universal standard for data representation.
No, it isn't. For one thing, EBCDIC is used to store a vast amount of data.
For another, how, precisely, do you represent (in the sense of
"symbolise") the Polish for "represent" (in the sense of "symbolise")
using ASCII? ASCII unaccountably lacks the c-acute character which is
necessary for this representation to be possible.
Non-English languages can be build on top of ASCII, as has happened
successfully with HTML.
In other words, ASCII is inadequate to the task. I agree. And non-English
languages could be built on top of any inadequate encoding; there's
nothing special about ASCII.
Non-ASCII representations certainly exist, but
they risk being unreadable on some platforms,
So does ASCII.
and in fact they all have
weaknesses which make them undesireable as replacements for ASCII.
But you have said yourself that ASCII needs to be replaced by something
that can represent non-English languages.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- References:
- Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Prev by Date: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Next by Date: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Previous by thread: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Next by thread: Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe I'm not worthy, maybe I'm scum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|